Underhill v Police [2014] NZHC 2541 (15 October 2014)

Last Updated: 4 January 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-404-215 [2014] NZHC 2541

BETWEEN	WAYNE UNDERHILL Appellant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	13 October 2014
Appearances:	Appellant in person L Mills for the Respondent
Judgment:	15 October 2014

JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Wednesday 15 October 2014 at 4.45 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:...............................

Counsel/Solicitors:

L Mills, Meredith Connell, Auckland Copy to the Appellant

WAYNE UNDERHILL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 2541 [15 October 2014]

[1] Wayne Underhill purports to appeal against a decision of a District Court Judge dismissing his application to review a Registrar’s decision under s 106F of the Summary Proceedings Act. The Registrar’s decision related to an application made by Mr Underhill on 28 February 2014 to dispute the fine imposed on him in relation to an infringement offence committed on 13 May 2010. The offence concerned related to Mr Underhill’s use of an unlicensed motor vehicle.

[2] The reason given by the District Court Judge in declining the application for review merely noted “no valid grounds advanced”.

[3] The grounds advanced by Mr Underhill for this appeal are these.

[4] First, a considerable number of other fines that have been disputed by him for similar (transport related) matters have now been withdrawn by the prosecuting authorities. Mr Underhill says that consistency demands that the present also be withdrawn

[5] Secondly, he relies (again) on what he says is the constitutional invalidity of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 under which the fines were imposed. This submission relies on Mr Underhill’s researches which, he says, reveal that there is some difficulty with the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 pursuant to which Parliament enacted the 1957 Act. Arguments of this nature have been rejected on a number of previous occasions by the Courts when dealing with Mr Underhill and other members of his family.¹

[6] I am unable to disagree with this line of direct (and in the case of the Court of Appeal’s judgment, binding) authority. But even if that were not the case, Mr Underhill faces the further difficulty that no right of appeal exists from the dismissal of an application for review of the exercise of a Registrar’s decision under s 106F. As France J noted in relation to a very similar appeal involving Mr Underhill’s son:²

There is considerable authority confirming that a review decision of this sort is neither appealable under the general conviction appeal provision (s 115 of

1. See Underhill v New Zealand Police [2014] NZHC 1494 at [5]; Underhill v Police [2012] NZHC 3363 at [14] and Underhill v R [2014] NZCA 228.

² Underhill v New Zealand Police [2014] NZHC 1367 at [10].

the Summary Proceedings Act 1957), nor under s 72 of the District Courts Act 1947 (which is limited to civil matters).

[7] Accordingly, and notwithstanding the engaging way in which Mr Underhill presented his submissions to me, the appeal is dismissed.











Rebecca Ellis J